U.S. officials for the first time disclosed insurance prices that will be offered through new federally run health-care exchanges starting Oct. 1, showing that young, healthy buyers likely will pay more than they do currently while older, sicker consumers should get a break.

The plans, offered under the health-care overhaul to people who don't get insurance through an employer or government program, in many cases provide broader coverage than current policies.

Costs will vary widely from state to state and for different types of consumers. Government subsidies will cut costs for some lower-income consumers.

ENLARGE

Exchange Rates

Compare insurance premiums for the lowest-cost 'bronze' plan for a 27-year-old single person with the current lowest-cost option for a man in a metro area in 36 states where the federal government will oversee exchanges.

Across the country, the average premium for a 27-year-old nonsmoker, regardless of gender, will start at $163 a month for the lowest-cost "bronze" plan; $203 for the "silver" plan, which provides more benefits than bronze; and $240 for the more-comprehensive "gold" plan.

But for some buyers, prices will rise from today's less-comprehensive policies. In Nashville, Tenn., a 27-year-old male nonsmoker could pay as little as $41 a month now for a bare-bones policy, but would pay $114 a month for the lowest-cost bronze option in the new federal health exchanges.

Likewise, the least-expensive bronze policy would rise to $195 a month in Philadelphia for that same 27-year-old, from $73 today. In Cheyenne, Wyo., the lowest-cost option would be $271 a month, up from $82 today.

What will ObamaCare cost you? In many cases, more than you think. WSJ health policy reporter Louise Radnofsky explains. Photo: Getty.

The Affordable Care Act marks a fundamental shift in the way insurers price their products. Carriers won't be allowed to charge higher premiums for consumers who have medical histories suggesting they might be more expensive to cover because they need more care. They will have to treat customers equally, with limited variation in premiums based on buyers' ages or whether they smoke.

Insurers also will have to offer a more generous benefits package that includes hospital care, preventive services, prescription drugs and maternity coverage.

For consumers used to skimpier plans—or young, healthy people who previously enjoyed attractive rates—that could mean significantly higher premiums.

The benefits are greater for people who previously were rejected for coverage because they were ill, or who were charged higher premiums. They are expected to find better coverage through the exchanges for the first time.

The concern for supporters of the law, and the administration, is whether enough healthy people sign up to balance the likely higher costs incurred by the sick and newly covered.

The data, which the administration was set to release Wednesday, cover 36 states where the federal government is operating insurance exchanges because state officials have declined to do so themselves. Fourteen states are operating exchanges on their own.

The Obama administration called the rates a good deal for consumers.

"The prices are affordable," said Gary Cohen, a top regulator at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Related Article

"Because of the Affordable Care Act, the health insurance that people will be buying will actually cover them in the case of them getting sick. It doesn't make sense to compare just the number the person was paying, you have to compare the value people are getting," Mr. Cohen added.

Critics of the health law long have argued that the price changes represent a dramatic increase in premiums, and Senate Republicans repeated those arguments during a floor debate Tuesday.

"Obamacare hasn't even been fully implemented yet, but we can already see the train wreck headed our way. Premiums are skyrocketing," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.).

Republicans are trying to repeal the law and have tied the issue to a bill to extend government funding beyond the Sept 30 end of the fiscal year. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) spoke on the Senate floor for hours into Tuesday night in what he said was a battle to block the law from taking effect.

The administration has pointed to new federal subsidies that many lower-income Americans will be able to use to help offset the cost of premiums.

The data released by the administration indicated that for younger single people, the value of the subsidies would be generous for someone with an annual income of up to about $25,000, though it could tail off after that.

The exchanges are set to open nationwide on Oct. 1, offering coverage that begins Jan. 1.

Washington is scrambling to fix a host of technical hurdles on the federally run exchanges, including ensuring the government's software can reliably determine the exact amount of subsidies for eligible people.

In another sign of the technical challenges, federal officials confirmed this week that if a person signing up online in the federal exchanges is found to be eligible for Medicaid, the system won't immediately be able to transfer the application to the person's state of residence. States traditionally handle enrollment for Medicaid, a federal-state health-insurance program for the poor.

The Medicaid computer handoff won't happen until Nov. 1, but people who are newly eligible for Medicaid should still be able to get coverage starting Jan. 1, officials said.

Meantime, Colorado became the second state, after Oregon, to limit the ability of residents to enroll online in its state-run exchange in the first weeks, saying some people will have to enroll by phone or in person for about a month until glitches are ironed out.

The plans on the federal exchanges are being labeled as gold, silver or bronze depending on what proportion of expected medical costs they cover. Younger people may be able to buy "catastrophic plans"—ones that cover a lower proportion of costs than a bronze option—but they cannot use subsidies toward those premiums. The administration's data indicated that catastrophic-plan rates won't cost much less than the bronze option.

The Obama administration said most people will have a choice of at least two carriers, but a few people will have just one choice. It said competition helped keep prices down from what some projections had initially estimated.

"I think there is an anticipation of a lot of new entrants coming into the market, so insurers are competing for all the new business…and insurers know people are going to be able to easily compare plans side-by-side," said Mr. Cohen.

One potential drawback of the plans on the exchanges: They often feature narrower networks of doctors and hospitals, meaning people might not be able to see the doctor of their choice.

"Carriers won't be allowed to charge higher premiums for consumers who have medical histories suggesting they might be more expensive to cover because they need more care. They will have to treat customers equally, with limited variation in premiums based on buyers' ages or whether they smoke."

This destroys the whole concept of risk evaluation and underwriting. Watch for insurance underwriters to become the next group of part timers.

This isn't insurance, it's wealth transfer. Insurance is something you hope NOT to use.

Kivel is so typical of progressive liberals. I scanned the comments he made and found mostly name calling. Really sad. Our country has so many problems and guys like this want to alienate others instead of trying to have civil communication. As for us horrible "baggers" (as you like to say) ...

We'd simply like fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. How does that make us racist, anarchist, self-righteous, reactionary, or radical??? We just want our leaders to get back to what the founders gave us ... a Constitutional Republic.

I have medicare so am covered, but my husband is no longer working and paying for insurance through an assigned risk pool. We live in Oregon which is running it's own exchange. I've checked the Cover Oregon website and found 45 different plans are available to my husband. The prices run from $353 to $939. Many of the plans are less than he is paying now ($550) and appear to have better coverage which is good news. It will take a some time to compare all the plans to decide which one is best. It is possible that we will qualify for a small subsidy but even without that, the plans available look like a good deal. The catch is sorting through all the choices. We have a couple months so I'm sure we can figure it out in time.

With each passing generation, the US population has higher concentrations of minority citizens. With each passing generation, Democrats attempt to make young minorities pay for the elaborate socialist hoaxes of old white people. Democrats teach young American minorities to worship at the alter of white European socialism.

I just received the great new PPACA plans and rates for Tennessee, where we have a Federally run exchange. Lots of competition, only one participating insurance carrier. The good new is that the medical service provider network is well established and was pretty much accepted by the vast majority of service providers prior to PPACA.

Now, for anyone who claims PPACA in anyway makes insurance more affordable, think again! Premiums, as predicted nearly tripled for younger folks. However, the folks that are nearing Medicare eligibility (who already were paying the highest premiums), are ALSO getting a whopping increase of at least 62% to 75% more to pay each month.

For those folks that haven't read PPACA and continue to extoll it virtues out of your ignorance, I have this to say...

This is the single most reprehensible, most anti-small business, and most egregiously detrimental to the poor of anything passed in the last 50 years.

It has already caused a significant rise in the costs of goods and services and will do so even more over the next year.

For those 'numb between the ears individuals' who happen to be poor and think this is a great deal for them, get this... going forward your welfare checks will NOT increase; but you will find that they will continue buying less and less of what could be bought prior to the establishment of PPACA.

PPACA is ALL about taxation, that is why the IRS is its enforcement arm.

PPACA, defined as the PATIENT PROTECTION and AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, actually has little to do with protecting patients or, for that matter, of even making care more affordable. Indeed, it is a governmental oxymoron of EPIC proportions.

Insurance is by definition the pooling of funds from the masses to pay the losses of the few. As such it functions primarily as a flow through mechanism. Although insurance carriers can, and do have their faults, insurance companies do not DRIVE the costs of insurance premiums, claims do. If one wants to make insurance premiums lower, then one must address the actual factors driving up the costs of insurance coverage.

Congress and the State legislators have indeed created a system so complex, so convoluted, and so corrupt that it is clear that no one but the Devil himself could have devised it. The legislators, through their actions have pandered, and continue to pander, to special interests and political affiliates. They (whether they be Demolicans or RepublicRats) have jettisoned the interests of the people.

PPACA largely protects those that are causing the costs of insurance to go up. While It vilifies insurers and their agents; it exacerbates the problems by protecting the interests of the worst offenders in this arena.

PPACA is far more appropriately defined as the...

PERSONAL PROPERTY APPROPRIATIONS COMMANDEERING ACT.

I find it indeed ironic that the very folks that have molded this system into what it is today; now claim they are the cure. PPACA is by design, deliberately created to assure that the system is as unworkable as men can make it. Once the burden and the suffering of the people (primarily those of low income and the poor) becomes so great, these legislators will again come in claiming they have the answer to make everyone's life better, a Single Payer system.

Single payer systems are very generous on collecting revenue; but when it comes to doling it back out to those in need, these same folks that mandate insurers must cover this and pay that say, oh, well we really do not feel that it is in the public's best interests to cover this or pay that.

Well, I got my health insurance renewal letter today for 2014. My new rate under Obamacare will be $570 HIGHER per month than my current rate (from under $800 now to nearly $1300 a month for my family of five). In other words to keep the same benefits I have now for my family will require me to pay an ADDITIONAL $6840 on top of what I'm paying now per year and that's for the third lowest plan, the silver plan. There's only one plan lower, the bronze plan. Guess what I'm not going to pay it. If I can't get this back down to a reasonable monthly amount then I will drop health insurance and will become one of the uninsured for the first time ever.

I want to thank all those people who voted for Democrats for massively increasing my health insurance rate.

My family physician, and my most trusted specialist, who has offered general advice to our family for years, are both quitting. One for moral and religious reasons, the other due to new regulations restricting his ability to service his customers.

@ Alan, unless you live in South Central Pennsylvania that is unlikely. Schools are state and local institutions. You can choose where you want to live and mitigate those costs. Federal programs on the other hand offer no such escape.

The middle class has been under attack for the last 25 years. College grants raise the cost and load middle class students with burdensome debt. Increased subsidies and their associated taxes have bitten into your discretionary income. And now through the ACA there are no more entry level full time job openings, only part time gigs, with no healthcare.

They have in essence destroyed the middle class, and created a larger lower class. The disparity gap continues to widen...

Accordingly and once again, welcome to "The Obamanation," which is a place were everything is promised, but no promises are fulfilled because "The Obamanation" is nothing more than an utterly incompetent and profoundly narcissistic liar who cares only about himself and whatever may capriciously appeal to him at any moment.

Great message Quentin. Everything you said is dead on. How sad it is that the 'numb between the ears individuals' you mentioned have been FED a LIE (pardon the pun) and didn't do the research to find out the truth. The government expects the young people to sign up (and many ignorant ones will) but if they are paying attention they'll realize that they have 2 choices:

They can sign up for an exchange at rates around ($200-400 per month) *** OR *** they can NOT sign up and pay a penalty of $95 per year. And the kicker is this ... IF they get sick and need insurance they can just sign up after they get sick. So ... what kind of idiot would sign up and pay thousands per year when they can just wait and see if they even need insurance? It'll only cost them $95/year to wait and see if they need it.

That's why you don't pass legislation before you "find out what's in it". This is all a pathway to Single Payer (aka socialized medicine) that puts our "benevolent" government in control of our health care. We're SCREWED!

The only solution I've seen to getting control is a new site: www.conventionofstates.com It is a movement based on Mark Levin's new book "The Liberty Amendments". You will find it interesting.

Uh, just curious Michael. You're currently insured, correct? Under an employer plan or as self-employed? You do know that if you're on an existing plan you should stay with it. And you have a family of five. And you make over $110,280 which is the cut off for receiving subsidies toward your policy premiums for a family of five? Was that $570 higher before or after applying any subsidies you might be receiving? And you of course went and checked this out: https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-out-of-pocket-costs/ right?

that's a big increase - are you sure that the benefits under the new policy are the same as the old one?

I just found out yesterday that my daughter (17) has an incurable though treatable condition that would probably preclude her from getting insured affordably if at all in a state that permits medical underwriting. This is nothing something due to "poor lifestyle choices" like so many on the right claim. One aspect is under the new system, pre-existing conditions can't be considered, so she gets treated like everyone else.

Your answer is simple. Cancel your insurance. If anyone in your family gets sick, you can enroll in a plan and the insurance company you choose can't refuse you. In the meantime, you just pay the $400 fine and save the rest of what you would have paid in premiums. For normal preventive care for your family, you can pay cash to a clinic for far less than the ObamaCare premiums. Then, go to work to defeat Democrats and elect Republicans. There is no other way out of this disaster.

"Time to catch up" indeed, and since "The Obamanation" has the frightening authority to exempt whomever he capriciously desires from the requirement to purchase "ObamanationCare" insurance, this legislation hardly provides for equal protection under the law as required by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and is therefore quite unconstitutional.

Or go to private schools...I was a child under the poverty level. I went to Catholic school and at the High School level I worked for my tuition. I went to two Ivy League universities and paid off my loans. I teach at a State University. Those that work hard in my classes are either first generation or are poor and want to be successful. Since the recession I am handing out fewer failing grades. The Millenial Generation understands competition.

@ Marc are you serious??? You think that my employer plan stayed the same through this mess? Sorry that I made good decisions and chose a field and a company that offered insurance.

My costs have gone up, and it's 100% due to the fact that we are now insuring the uninsurable. People who will undoubtedly cost more to the system than they pay in, it's the same situation we now have in Social Security.

The healthy and responsible have been penalized to subsidize the unhealthy and irresponsible. Penalizing responsible people and redistributing their savings is the hallmark of all Liberal policy.

Fine. ACA does not apply to folks already on an employer health plan. Folks in Congress are on a health plan (although I admit it is overly generous) so they aren't subject to the ACA.... you were saying?

I'm working on submitting something to National Association of Health Underwriters (and anyone else who may listen). I've made suggestions in the past to our legislators; but these have always fallen on deaf ears.

In designing a palatable and workable system, the following criterion must be included...

First and foremost, the government should serve the following functions ONLY...

(Remember that the primary function of government is to PROTECT the public (not fleece the public for political agendas.)

1.. Create a standardized framework of rules and definitions so that the public can purchase insurance with confidence with the clear knowledge of the protection they are buying and an accurate knowledge of their obligations.

2. Create a flexible framework of standards that eliminates the need of the PPO layer of costs by setting a base standard for services and corresponding costs whereby the members of the medical community must elect a percentage participation standard from year to year using incremental elections (such as tiers of 25% higher or lower than the standard.... ie. Tier I would be 25% below whereby Tier IV would be 50% higher). This would allow insurers to price their claims according and the public to elect the level of coverage they are most comfortable with. In the process, this would cut 10% off the costs being paid to AMA hospital conglomerate boards for the guarantee of no surprise overcharges.

3. Create a set of rules that not only encourage competition in the Pharmaceutical industry; but also limits the ability of Big Pharma to participate in the political process. (If the government is going to create rules that limit or eliminate 'profit' fro insurers; they really should go after these guys.) Advertising to the public should be illegal and offering kickbacks to physicians for pushing their products is not exactly what I would consider in the publics best interests. Right now Big Pharma rules, with legislators Kowtowing to their every whim and fancy with the public paying the price at every corner. Pharmaceuticals account for a minimum of 25% of our premiums (if one simply were to cut out the costs of their advertising to the public, these costs could probably cut this by at least 35%).

4. Modify the ability of tort attorneys to go after anyone for anything and overhaul the medical malpractice insurance industry. It costs a minimum of $25,000.00 to defend oneself against completely baseless lawsuits. Lawsuits increase our premiums by an estimated 7%. The vast majority of lawsuits are completely baseless (perhaps even in excess of 50%). The tort attorneys know that most parties will go for the far less expensive option of settling baseless lawsuits for less than $15,000.00 than to pay the $25,000 to $50,000 they would have to pay to win their case. Think of how different it would be if the tort attorneys got a taste of their own medicine. Instead of assessing docs for claims settled, assess the tort attorneys liability coverage ridiculously based on the number claims they file per year. Say $25,000 for their first five claims, $50,000 for their first ten claims, and do not cap the assessments until an attorneys premium hits say $200,000. (After all, many specialist have to pay this amount per year by law.) Ambulance chasers would virtually disappear overnight.

4. Implement a pooling structure requiring per capita participation of all insurers that will cover the 'uninsurable' and 'high risk' individuals which rewards the most efficient insurers for containing costs and achieving the most favorable patient results to encourage innovation.

LOL Wow I was waiting for one of Leviathan Levin's shock troops to make a play for Der Fuehrer and I wasn't mistaken. Yep, that's what I love about concerned self-righteous white radical reactionaries - always looking for a way to let others carry the load until they need something then have to only pay the minimum to get full service...no wonder our country is a mess - to many baggers with no morals or ethics in it....

The biggest medical bill I ever faced was when my son had a bone infection. The costs for immediately needed surgery and 11 days in the hospital were much more than I made in a year. Even if he had happened to get sick during open enrollment, the coverage would not start until the next month which would have left us responsible for all the costs and have bankrupted our family. If you have assets you would not be willing to give up to creditors, insurance is worth it.

No... While I sympathize with your daughters condition and my prayers go out to you during this time, you're wrong. She is not "treated like everyone else" we are all charged and penalized so she can be treated.

Again, while you made awesome lifestyle choices, I certainly did not have anything to do with her getting sick. Call a spade a spade, it's not a tax, it's a subsidy to those who are sick or in poor health.

this is a misconception because you have to enroll in an insurance plan at least 2 weeks before the policy term starts (Dec 15 is the last day to enroll in a policy starting Jan 1). Also, there will be limited open enrollment periods - for this year, the open enrollment period ends in March so the only way you can sign up afterwards is to show you've had a change in family status (new child, divorce etc.) or lost employer-based insurance due to job loss. Which, by the way, is why most people lose insurance. Then they get hit with those huge COBRA bills just when paychecks aren't coming in... The ACA is designed to fix that.

I don't necessarily disagree with William but it seems that plan may be playing right into the governments hands, making us all dependent on them. I would recommend increasing deductibles to make the pain a little more bearable. I'd rather do anything than being cornered into a government health care plan that will be anything but "affordable" and doesn't give a s**t about "patient protection". It's about control and taxes. Wake up America and tell the government that they work for us (not the other way around).

Even if what you claim is accurate, especially since we've not had to endure "ObamanationCare" yet, how can we be certain that "ObamanationCare" will not result in inferior healthcare for those who have no other choice. After all, the cost of every plan in Ohio is not the same.

Still, the foregoing notwithstanding, we have no information about what it will cost Ohioans to renew their health insurance coverage after one year, which is when I suspect the real shock of the true cost of "ObamanationCare" will be all too obvious.

In response to David Z's comment below: well I admit, David, given the demonstrated rapacity and greed of many folks in the healthcare industry and their less than stellar results in preventing unnecessary sickness and damage to Americans, I expect we can't count on many of them to do the right thing for moral and ethical reasons. But if for no other reason than their greed I suspect we'll find treatment will be at least as good as it has been - or we'll have a lot of MDs paying much, much higher malpractice premiums.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.